I write with respect to our ongoing discussions regarding our steroid
testing agreement. We both share a common interest and commitment to
ensure our game is free of illegal performance-enhancing substances. We
both understand that our current program is working, as we predicted it
would, but that its success has not satisfied some of those who criticize
us. Given our shared interests and the Associations evident willingness to
compromise, our failure thus far to reach a comprehensive new agreement is
both frustrating and disappointing, all the more so because the players
have agreed to nearly all of the changes you sought in your April 25, 2005
letter to me.

In your letter, you sought more frequent testing to create further
deterrence. Although neither of us doubts the deterrent effect of the
current program, we have essentially agreed to your proposal. We have
agreed to increase the number of suspicionless tests from 1,440 to 3,000.
Every player will be tested at the start of spring training, creating an
additional deterrent to off-season steroid use. Every player will be
subject to at least one additional random test during the season. And
every player will remain subject to additional random testing  we accepted
your proposal of 600 such additional tests  throughout the calendar year.
All players would be tested at least twice, and every player will know he
is always subject to yet another test, no matter how many times he has
already been tested.

You acknowledged that our current program operates with integrity,
but nevertheless suggested that administrative responsibility for the
program should be moved from HPAC to a jointly-selected independent
expert. Notwithstanding what we believe to be uninformed criticism of our
efforts to date, we have agreed with you to move much of the administration
of the program, essentially accepting your last proposal.

You urged that we revisit the governmental investigations provision
to ensure that it is drawn as narrowly as possible to address [the
Unions] legitimate concerns. We have done so, making plain in word what
we already have demonstrated in deed -- that a Congressional request for
summary information about our testing results does not jeopardize our
program.

You stated that our agreement must cover amphetamines. You proposed
a structure for accomplishing that, and we have accepted that structure.
Under it, players would be subject to random testing for amphetamines. As
with steroid testing, each player will be tested at least twice in-season,
and is subject to additional random tests. We have proposed a disciplinary
schedule for amphetamines that, like your last proposal, mandates
additional testing for first-offenders and serious suspensions for repeat
offenders.

With respect to penalties for steroid use, you said, Discipline
levels should be increased within the framework of a three strikes and you
are out approach. Our proposal permits you to impose on third
offenders such discipline as you believe appropriate, including a permanent
ban, provided that it is consistent with just cause, and subject to
arbitral review. Thus, we have agreed that in circumstances in which the
facts would justify a permanent ban, you may impose one. But we also
believe that fundamental fairness requires that the particular facts and
circumstances of the individual case must be considered, especially when
the potential penalty is permanent ineligibility. With respect to a 2nd
positive steroid test, you proposed that the penalty be moved from 30 days
to 100 games. We have proposed a presumptive 75-game penalty  nearly 1/2 of
a Major League season  with the possibility that 100 games may be imposed
in appropriate circumstances, provided that an arbitrator can reduce the
penalty (but not below 50 games) where the player demonstrates that it
would be fair and just to do so. This demonstrates the players
commitment to severe penalties for Players who repeatedly violate the
steroid policy.

Our principal remaining disagreement is the penalty to be imposed for
an initial positive test for steroids. You have publicly proposed a
50-game penalty, a position from which you have not wavered. Indeed, your
current proposal provides for a presumptive 50-game penalty, but in
appropriate circumstances permits you to impose 60 games and the player to
argue before the Arbitration Panel for 40 games. We have proposed a
presumptive penalty of 20 games, twice the current penalty, with the
possibility that you may impose a suspension of up to 30 games if the facts
and circumstances warrant, and the player may argue to an arbitrator that
the facts justify a lower penalty, but not below 10 games.

A 50-game penalty for a first-time steroid positive is not necessary
to deter steroid use; indeed, you have never defended your proposal on the
basis that it is. As you have acknowledged, both in 2004 (when our
agreement provided for follow-up testing only for such violations) and in
2005 (when it mandated a 10-day suspension) our program has worked. And
the facts support that judgment: the program has reduced steroid use to
only 12 confirmed positives last year, and only 9 so far this year
(including the one player whose positive test was the result of prior use
for which he had already been disciplined). Nor do we believe that a
50-game penalty is fair, and you have never defended your proposal on the
basis that it is. Prior to the March 17, 2005 congressional hearing, the
Commissioners Office imposed only a 15-game penalty for first-time
positives in the minor leagues, though you could have chosen any penalty
you deemed fair and appropriate, without the constraints of collective
bargaining. Before this year, you never even proposed a first-time penalty
exceeding 15 games.

Rather, it appears the 50 game initial penalty is principally a
response to criticisms which have been made of our current program. We
share your concern about the criticism our program has received, and, in
response, the players have demonstrated, several times now, their
willingness to take all reasonable measures in response. But we are still
required to adopt, and defend, reasonable, fair and appropriate agreements.

As you know, the players have proposed a presumptive 20-game
suspension for an initial positive steroid test, twice that in the
admittedly effective current agreement. Moreover, if the Commissioners
Office can prove aggravating factors, a 30-game suspension - three times
that in the admittedly effective current agreement - is permitted. If a
player can demonstrate mitigating factors such that the presumptive penalty
is not appropriate, an Arbitrator may reduce the penalty (but not below 10
games). We made this proposal in the interests of compromise, and believe
that it should form the basis of an agreement.

Having said that, the Association remains willing to continue our
negotiations in an effort to bridge our remaining differences so that a new
program will be in place for 2006. I ask you to work with us to address
our remaining concerns, as we have worked with you to address the issues
you identified. We should do all we can to have a new program in place
for next year, one that is not only a strong deterrent, but at the same
time is fair, as the players deserve.